American Jobs Plan (2021)

More stories

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    A Look at What's Inside Biden’s $6 Trillion Plan

    by

    President Biden’s funding request to Congress lays out his economic ambitions, with proposals for significant new spending in areas like infrastructure, education and the environment.President Biden’s first budget request maps out a vision of an expansive federal government in the years to come, with increased spending in areas like infrastructure, education and climate change.The $6 trillion plan for the 2022 fiscal year, released on Friday, provides a detailed accounting of Mr. Biden’s economic agenda. It includes two marquee proposals that he has put before Congress: the American Jobs Plan, which calls for new spending on the nation’s infrastructure, and the American Families Plan, which addresses issues like child care, universal prekindergarten and paid family and medical leave.As part of those plans, Mr. Biden is seeking to increase taxes on corporations and high earners. The president’s tax proposals are detailed in the budget request as well.The budget expands on a proposal that Mr. Biden released in April covering discretionary spending, which sketched out his desire to inject funds across domestic agencies, a sharp reversal from President Donald J. Trump’s spending policies.Here are some of the notable proposals in Mr. Biden’s budget request.— Thomas KaplanAn offshore wind turbine facility near Block Island, R.I.Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesClimate change is back in the budget.The budget proposal adds $14 billion in new money across government agencies to policies and programs devoted to climate change — a stark contrast to the Trump administration, which tried, unsuccessfully, to zero out funding for dozens of clean energy programs.It also includes the first request for international climate change assistance since 2017. The Biden administration will ask Congress for $1.2 billion for the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations entity created as part of the Paris agreement on climate change to help developing countries.President Barack Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund but delivered only a third of the money during his term. Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement and also stopped payments into the Green Climate Fund. Mr. Biden, on his first day in office, recommitted the United States to the global accord and promised to restore Mr. Obama’s foreign aid commitments.Domestically, the Biden administration said its funding across agencies would help build the nation’s capacity to transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and other renewable energy. The budget proposal also includes details of the administration’s pledge to devote at least 40 percent of spending on climate change to communities of color, which studies have shown are disproportionately affected by both air pollution and climate change.The administration is proposing $11.2 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, a 22 percent increase from the previous year. The E.P.A. was consistently targeted for deep cuts under the Trump administration, and its climate change and health programs were typically dealt particularly heavy blows.The new blueprint makes the case for new spending on environment infrastructure — like replacing all of the country’s lead pipes — after a decade of budget caps and cuts that the administration said caused the agency’s budget to decline by 27 percent since 2010.It includes $936 million for a new E.P.A. program to address racial disparities in exposures to environmental contamination. That program will include $100 million for air quality monitoring and notification technology in communities that will provide real-time data in places with the highest levels of exposure to pollution.The budget allocates $580 million to plug old oil and gas wells and clean up abandoned mines — a plan the Biden administration has eyed for both new jobs protecting communities against the environmental dangers that thousands of old abandoned mines across the country pose as well as a way to prevent future global warming pollution.David Coursen, a former E.P.A. attorney who works with the Environmental Protection Network of former agency officials, called the budget request “robust” and said it would “help rebuild the agency after years of chronic disinvestment.”— Lisa FriedmanA hydrogen fuel pump station in Torrance, Calif.Philip Cheung for The New York TimesA plan to fund clean energy technologies.President Biden’s budget proposes more than $800 billion over the next decade in new spending and tax breaks in a bid to accelerate the deployment of clean-energy technologies aimed at fighting climate change, from hydrogen fuels to the next generation of nuclear power plants.Mr. Biden has vowed to slash America’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 to help stave off the worst effects of global warming, and the White House is betting that it can reach that goal in large part by using the federal government’s resources to help fund millions of new wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles as well as newer technologies that do not produce carbon dioxide.The overwhelming majority of the new energy spending being proposed in the budget would depend on Congress passing Mr. Biden’s infrastructure proposal, which still faces an uncertain fate. Republicans in the Senate have pushed back against spending on items like electric vehicle charging stations.In his budget, Mr. Biden is proposing $265 billion over the next decade to expand and extend federal tax breaks for companies that build clean energy sources such as offshore wind turbines or battery storage on the grid. He is also calling for $9.7 billion worth of tax credits to help maintain America’s existing fleet of nuclear reactors, which do not produce carbon dioxide emissions but have faced the risk of closure in recent years because of competition from cheap natural gas.The budget also proposes $10 billion in tax credits for trucks that do not produce planet-warming emissions, such as those powered by batteries or hydrogen, as well as $6.6 billion for cleaner jet fuels and $23 billion to incentivize new electric transmission lines that can transport wind and solar power from far-flung regions in the country. And it proposes to spend $23 billion over the next decade on tax credits for companies that install “carbon capture” technology at power plants or factories.Mr. Biden is requesting to increase the Energy Department’s budget by $4.3 billion, or 10.4 percent, with much of the focus on enabling the deployment of clean energy sources. That includes $1.9 billion to help make homes more energy-efficient and speed up permitting of transmission lines.Mr. Biden is also calling for federal agencies to spend $50 billion over the next decade to procure clean-energy technologies for their own use, including electrified Postal Service vehicles, lower-carbon materials such as steel and cement, as well as electricity from advanced nuclear power plants that are still under development.To a smaller extent, Mr. Biden is also proposing to cut the federal government’s spending on fossil fuels, by rescinding $35 billion worth of subsidies over the next decade for oil, gas and coal companies, including the repeal of tax breaks for well depreciation and a tax credit for drilling expenses. The administration is proposing to raise an additional $84 billion by changing how the government treats extraction and foreign income for oil and gas producers.In addition to spending, Mr. Biden’s climate plans will depend heavily on a separate proposal for a clean electricity standard that would require the nation’s electric utilities to steadily increase their use of all these new low-carbon energy sources until they had zeroed out their emissions in 2035. That policy is only mentioned in passing in the budget, and it would require Congress’s approval.— Brad PlumerHomes destroyed by Hurricane Delta in Creole, La., last year.Mario Tama/Getty ImagesFEMA aims to cushion the rising cost of flood insurance.The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which Mr. Biden has leaned on heavily in the first few months of his presidency, would see its budget stay roughly constant, at about $3.3 billion. Much of the agency’s funding comes in the form of emergency injections of money by Congress after a disaster.But FEMA’s budget request is important for another reason: It shows the administration’s struggle to address the rising costs of climate change, and how those costs affect American households.As climate change gets worse, more frequent and severe floods have pushed FEMA to increase the cost of federal flood insurance, which covers about five million policyholders. Those price increases have generated intense pushback from lawmakers warning that their constituents will suffer — including Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, who objected in March to FEMA’s overhaul of rates.The budget request addresses that concern, proposing to help subsidize premiums for homeowners who might not otherwise be able to afford flood insurance. The goal of those subsidies, FEMA says, is to increase the number of people in flood zones who have coverage.The attempt to reform flood insurance is just one indication of the federal government’s concern that climate change, in addition to its growing human toll, will also wreak havoc on the budget.The budget request calls the impact of climate change a “primary risk,” one that “will likely have significant effects on the long-run fiscal outlook.”The White House presented that financial concern as a selling point for Mr. Biden’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. “The budget’s climate policies serve to mitigate long-run impacts of climate change,” the request said.— Christopher FlavelleThe most ambitious health care ideas come with no numbers.The budget for the Health and Human Services Department includes significant increases for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. But it is perhaps more notable for what it does not include.In its budget summary, the White House signaled its commitment to a range of major health reform proposals, including the creation of a public option health insurance plan; an effort to lower prescription drug costs; a plan to lower the age of eligibility for Medicare; and an expansion of Medicare benefits, to add vision, hearing and dental coverage.But the costs of those expansive policy changes were omitted from the official budget calculations, making it difficult to assess their real cost.Those omissions are unusual. The Trump administration’s budgets also included a number of large health policy initiatives, such as repealing provisions of the Affordable Care Act and a different set of prescription drug reforms. That administration’s budgets included at least a rough accounting of the costs and savings associated with those ideas.Several of the proposals are the subject of active discussion on Capitol Hill. The leaders of two key congressional committees announced this week that they would begin work on a new public option proposal, which would allow certain Americans to buy a government-run health insurance plan instead of private insurance. The House has worked for years on a bill to lower prescription drug prices and extend Medicare benefits for more services. And progressives have been pushing for expanded Medicare eligibility in recent months, a proposal that was also part of Mr. Biden’s campaign platform.Unlike the budgets of the Obama and Trump years, the Biden budget does not propose any policy changes in Medicare. Both previous administrations had suggested a series of small changes meant to improve the efficiency of the program without reducing benefits. Instead, the budget summary document notes that “that we can reform Medicare payments to insurers and certain providers to reduce overpayments and strengthen incentives to deliver value-based care,” a possible sign that such initiatives could be considered in the future. The only major change in Medicare is an expansion of the budget for its fraud unit, additional spending that is estimated to result in about $1 billion in savings a year.While each of the unspecified policy ideas is popular with Democratic voters, each has the potential to upset key health care lobbies, by reducing their funding or replacing their market share with direct government services.The budget does include an extension of new Obamacare subsidies passed by Congress as part of the American Rescue Plan. Those subsidies, which lower the cost of health insurance for most Americans who buy their own insurance, are estimated to cost $163 billion over the next decade. It also includes an additional $400 billion over a decade in spending for home and community-based care for elderly and disabled people, a change proposed as part of the American Jobs Plan.— Margot Sanger-KatzBorder Patrol agents questioning migrants from Central America in Yuma, Ariz., this month.Ariana Drehsler for The New York TimesFunding to deal with migrants at Southern border.Mr. Biden requested $3.2 billion for the office that manages migrant children and teenagers who have been arriving alone at the U.S.-Mexican border in record numbers this year. It is a $1.3 billion increase over what the Trump administration sought in the 2021 budget request.The budget includes funding for asylum and refugee programs to support as many as 125,000 admissions in fiscal year 2022. And to address the backlog in immigration cases, the budget includes $891 million for immigration judges and their staff. As part of that effort, the administration requested $345 million for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to process asylum cases that have been backlogged for years.The administration has been struggling to place migrant children housed in Health and Human Services centers with family members in the United States, which as of Wednesday, is taking an average of 39 days.The budget request includes $15 million to test a new program that would provide migrants with legal representation, which can help them move faster through the bureaucracy.— Eileen SullivanA Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft at an air show in Berlin.Axel Schmidt/ReutersThe Pentagon pivots to a possible war with China.After nearly 20 years of funding overseas combat through supplemental accounts, the Pentagon will now be paying for its wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries through its overall budget of $715 billion in 2022.While the Army will see a small increase of funding for training Afghan security forces, its overall spending on combat operations will drop more than 21 percent to $18.4 billion..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}The armed services’ budget requests reflect the Biden administration’s shift away from fighting against insurgent groups and a renewed focus on preparing for conventional wars against countries equipped with similar ships and aircraft, with China as their priority.The naval services are placing bets on the need for new anti-ship missiles, including giving the Marine Corps the ability to launch attacks on enemy warships over the horizon from truck-mounted launchers on land. Instead of pursuing the 355-ship fleet envisioned by the previous administration, the new budget’s funding of eight new ships in 2022 will see an overall modest rise to 296 ships, even after the Navy decommissions a number of the earliest Littoral Combat Ships that have been plagued by mechanical problems.The Army, Navy and Air Force are all investing in hypersonic weapons — missiles with conventional explosive warheads that can fly at many times the speed of sound and hit targets at ranges previously only reachable by cruise missiles or nuclear ballistic missiles. In the wake of the United States leaving the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in August 2019, the Army is continuing the development of artillery rockets capable of ranges previously banned by that agreement.The Pentagon will be buying 48 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, and 37 for the Navy and Marine Corps.Military personnel will be receiving a 2.7 percent raise, and troop levels will remain relatively flat with slight reductions in all services save for the Air Force, which will increase its ranks by less than one percent.— John IsmayA reinvestment in diplomacy, democracy and refugees.Mr. Biden has stressed the value of restoring American diplomacy and alliances, and his budget requests an increase of $6.3 billion for the State Department and international programs, more than 11 percent above current levels — and almost 50 percent more than the last budget proposed by Mr. Trump, who repeatedly targeted the State Department for cuts.Prioritizing the threat of the coronavirus, the overall $63.6 billion request includes $1 billion in foreign aid to combat the spread of Covid-19, promote global health security programs and increase research to detect and stop future viral outbreaks.Programs supporting refugees and conflict victims would also grow: The budget asks for $10 billion in humanitarian assistance for vulnerable people overseas. And it would offer $861 million in assistance to Central American nations to help address the root causes of migration from those countries to America’s southern border.In response to growing cybersecurity threats and breaches, the budget asks $500 million for the Technology Modernization Fund, $110 million for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and $750 million “to respond to lessons learned from the SolarWinds incident,” a massive intrusion into federal computer networks attributed to Russia.— Michael CrowleyAddressing violence against women and gender rights.The budget proposes giving the Justice Department the funding it needs to enforce key pieces of Mr. Biden’s domestic policy agenda on a range of issues that the previous administration did not prioritize, including enforcement of environmental laws, efforts to end gender abuse and initiatives to curb gun violence.The Justice Department’s Violence Against Women Act programs could get $1 billion, nearly double the 2021 amount, to fund existing programs and new initiatives that expand protections for transgender survivors of gender-based violence and support people of color who may not have had access to intervention and counseling resources in the past.The proposed budget also allocates $2.1 billion to address gun violence as a public health crisis, a number that is about 12 percent higher than in the previous year. — Katie BennerA teacher’s assistant and students at a Head Start program in Jacksonville, Fla., in 2018.Eve Edelheit for The New York TimesInvestments in high-poverty schools.The budget describes the need to address entrenched disparities in education as both a moral and economic imperative.It includes a $36.5 billion investment in high-poverty schools, a $20 billion increase from the previous year — which it describes as the largest year-over-year increase to the program, known as Title I, since it was created by President Lyndon B. Johnson.It includes $7.4 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, an increase of $1.5 billion from the previous year, designed to expand access to quality, affordable child care.It also seeks to increase aid to early education programs, increasing the maximum Pell Grant by $400, the largest one-time increase since 2009.Mr. Biden is also expanding Head Start programs, which provide early intervention education and support for low-income students. The budget includes an $11.9 billion investment in the program, an increase of $1.2 billion. The coronavirus relief package also included an additional $1 billion for Head Start.— Annie KarniNew York City public housing in Manhattan.Joshua Bright for The New York TimesA renewed emphasis on protecting workers and job training.The budget provides a significant boost in funding for the Labor Department, including more money for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is responsible for ensuring worker safety, and the Wage and Hour Division, which enforces fair labor laws. Mr. Biden is proposing a 14 percent increase to the Labor Department’s budget.OSHA was widely criticized during the pandemic for failing to do enough to protect workers at meatpacking and other plants where thousands of employees became infected. The agency has lost hundreds of inspectors in recent years, according to the National Employment Law Project, hindering its ability to conduct thorough inspections.— Glenn ThrushThe I.R.S. would get more money to catch tax cheats.For years, the budget of the Internal Revenue Service has been depleted as Republicans sought to starve it of resources in negotiations over appropriations.The Biden administration’s budget changes that, providing $13.2 billion to the tax collection agency so that it can ramp up enforcement activity. A well-staffed I.R.S. is central to the White House’s plan to shrink the “tax gap” and crack down on large companies and wealthy individuals who have avoided paying what they owe.The Treasury Department, which oversees the I.R.S., believes that an $80 billion investment in the I.R.S. over 10 years could yield $700 billion in additional tax revenue.On top of its usual tax collection duties, the I.R.S. has also been at the center of the Treasury Department’s economic relief effort. It has been responsible for distributing stimulus payments and will soon be making monthly payments of the child tax credit.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned this week that her department, to which the budget allocates $15 billion, “cannot continue to be good stewards of this recovery” without sufficient resources.— Alan Rappeport More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden's Plan: President to Propose $6 Trillion Budget to Boost Middle Class, Infrastructure

    by

    The president’s plans to invest in infrastructure, education, health care and more would push federal spending to its highest sustained levels since World War II.WASHINGTON — President Biden will propose a $6 trillion budget on Friday that would take the United States to its highest sustained levels of federal spending since World War II as he looks to fund a sweeping economic agenda that includes large new investments in education, transportation and fighting climate change. More

  • 88 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Republicans Promise Counteroffer as Infrastructure Talks Falter

    by

    President Biden and Democrats are facing difficult decisions about how to move their infrastructure plan through Congress as bipartisan momentum flags.WASHINGTON — With bipartisan negotiations faltering, President Biden and Senate Democrats are facing difficult decisions about how to salvage their hopes of enacting a major new infrastructure package this year, and waning time to decide whether to continue pursuing compromise with Republicans or try to act on their own. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Amid Economic Turmoil, Biden Stays Focused on Longer Term

    by

    The president’s advisers are pushing their most detailed argument yet for the long-term benefits of a $4 trillion agenda to remake the American economy.WASHINGTON — President Biden and his economic team on Thursday made their most detailed case yet for trillions of dollars in new federal spending to rebuild public investment in workers, research and physical infrastructure, focusing on long-term ingredients of economic growth and equality as the current recovery from recession showed signs of distress.The president’s aides published what amounted to a deeper economic backbone for the argument that Mr. Biden is making publicly and privately to sell his plans to lawmakers, including the message he conveyed to a group of Republican senators he invited to the White House on Thursday to discuss an infrastructure package centered on roads, bridges, transit and broadband.That meeting ended with encouraging words from both sides. Republicans said Mr. Biden invited the senators, who had previously offered a nearly $570 billion, narrowly focused package, to return with an updated offer, including how to pay for new spending.Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who is leading the Republicans’ negotiations, said lawmakers would prepare an updated offer for the president to review by early next week, including a more detailed list of the kinds of projects they would be willing to fund and a set of proposals to cover the costs. The senators said they expected Mr. Biden would then respond with a counteroffer.“I made it clear that this was not a stagnant offer from us,” Ms. Capito said. “He made it clear that he is serious in wanting to pursue this.”She said Republican senators were open to raising the overall top-line price tag of their offer, which is a fraction of the new spending the president proposed. She also suggested that Republicans would be willing to cut a deal with Mr. Biden even if he decided to pursue a more progressive package, including priorities beyond traditional infrastructure, with only Democratic votes. Other senators predicted the sides would know by Memorial Day whether they could reach a deal.“It’s in nobody’s interest to draw this out beyond the time when you think it’s workable,” said Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri. “But I certainly left there thinking there’s a workable agreement to be had if we want to stretch a little both ways.”Shortly before the meeting, the White House Council of Economic Advisers posted a document to its website that cast Mr. Biden’s $4 trillion economic agenda as a way to correct decades of tax-cutting policies that had failed to bolster the middle class. In its place, the administration is pushing a rebuilding of public investment, like infrastructure, research and education, as the best way to fuel economic growth and improve families’ lives.The so-called issue brief reflects the administration’s longer-term thinking on economic policy when conservatives have ramped up criticism of the president over slowing job growth and accelerating inflation.Administration officials express confidence that recent price surges in used cars, airfare and other sectors of the economy will prove temporary, and that job growth will speed up again as more working-aged Americans are vaccinated against Covid-19 and regain access to child care during work hours. They say Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion economic aid package, which he signed in March, will lift job growth in the coming months, noting that new claims for unemployment fell to a pandemic-era low on Thursday.The officials also said it was appropriate for the president to look past the current crisis and push efforts to strengthen the economy long term.The two halves of Mr. Biden’s $4 trillion agenda, the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, are premised on the economy returning to a low unemployment rate where essentially every American who wants to work is able to find a job, Cecilia Rouse, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview.“The American Rescue Plan was rescue,” Dr. Rouse said. “It was meant as stimulus as we work through this hopefully once-in-a-century, if not longer, pandemic. The American Jobs Plan, American Families Plan are saying, look, that’s behind us, but we knew going into the pandemic that there were structural problems in our country and in our economy.”Mr. Biden’s plans would raise taxes on high earners and corporations to fund new federal spending on physical infrastructure, care for children and older Americans, expanded access to education, an accelerated transition to low-carbon energy and more.Those efforts “reflect the empirical evidence that a strong economy depends on a solid foundation of public investment, and that investments in workers, families and communities can pay off for decades to come,” Mr. Biden’s advisers wrote. “These plans are not emergency legislation; they address longstanding challenges.”The five-page brief focuses on arguments about what drives productivity, wage growth, innovation and equity in the economy. The issues predate the coronavirus recession and recovery, and Democrats in particular have pledged for years to address them.The brief begins by attacking the “old orthodoxy” of tax-cutting policies by presidents and Congress, including the 2017 tax cut passed by Republicans under President Donald J. Trump. A driving rationale behind that law was an effort to encourage more investment by private companies, bolstering what economists call the nation’s capital stock. The brief faults those policies for not producing the rapid gains in economic growth that champions of those policies promised, and it says that raising taxes on high earners “will help ensure that the gains from economic growth are more broadly shared.”Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts, particularly for businesses, are the key to economic competitiveness and middle-class prosperity. They have refused to negotiate any changes to their party’s signature 2017 tax law as part of an infrastructure agreement, even as they concede some need for a limited version of the new public investments Mr. Biden is calling for.Republicans used the meeting on Thursday to reiterate that they would be unwilling to raise corporate or personal taxes lowered by their 2017 law. Instead, they pitched the president on the use of zero-interest loans and public-private partnerships, in addition to existing gasoline taxes and other government savings.Mr. Biden would raise taxes to reverse what his economic team calls the federal government’s underinvestment in policies that help educate children and adults, facilitate the development of new technologies and industries and support parents so they are able to work and earn more. His team cites the wave of quickly developed coronavirus vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, which grew out of publicly funded research, as an example of public investments yielding private-sector innovation.“Those started with ideas that were funded by the public sector decades ago,” Dr. Rouse said. “And then the private sector built on top of that, so it’s really, the private sector needs to work with the public sector. We are all very grateful that the public sector was willing to take that risk, and it didn’t pay off right away.”“In many ways, the federal government should be patient,” she said. “We are a kind of entity, we should be patient. So I’m not saying we have to wait a million years for something to pay off, but we don’t need to have the kind of immediate payoff that a private company might need to see.”That argument is in many ways a departure from how administrations typically pitch economic policies during a crisis. There is no focus in the brief on immediate job creation or a quick bump in economic growth.Weeks after Mr. Biden detailed both halves of his plan, the administration has offered no projections about the effects of his policies on jobs or growth. Instead, Dr. Rouse and other administration officials cited forecasts by the Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi, which are among the more favorable outside analyses of the president’s agenda.Administration officials say there is no need for their economic team to produce such forecasts. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly called for the White House to produce an estimate of how many jobs would be created by Mr. Biden’s plans. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Can the Biden Agenda Fix Middle America’s Deepest Problem?

    by

    One key economic goal is to create the virtuous cycles of innovation and jobs that already occur in many coastal cities.Last week, the Census Bureau said that the last decade’s population growth was the slowest in generations. Also last week, President Biden addressed Congress and laid out a wide-ranging, multi-trillion dollar economic agenda.The two developments are tightly related.For much of the United States, a demographic crisis and an economic crisis are two sides of the same coin. In many cities and regions, a shrinking population reduces the tax base, leading to underinvestment and deterioration of the physical environment and public services, causing even more jobs and people to go elsewhere.Part of the aspiration of Bidenism — a through-line in the pandemic rescue plan already enacted, and in major proposals for spending on infrastructure and family support — is to break that cycle. Mayors and others focused on the development of places that have experienced economic and demographic languishing see a distinct opportunity to use federal money to fix problems long in the making.There are inherent tensions. Spending money in places with a fast-growing population typically offers a surer economic return than spending it in those that are contracting.The economic case for investing in places that have lagged in the modern economy relies on the possibility of reversing those negative trends and unlocking new growth. Many of those directly involved in that effort are downright giddy with the possibility that they can seize this moment to prepare their cities and towns for the future.Downtown Huntington, W.Va., last year. “The growth is going to occur where there is a community that is functional,” Mayor Steve Williams said.Andrew Spear for The New York Times“If you spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, it sounds like an awful lot of money,” said Steve Williams, the mayor of Huntington, W.Va., a city of 45,000 people — down from 50,000 in 2010. But after what he views as decades of underinvestment, and considering the potential long-term payoff, “it’s just a pittance,” he said.“We’re talking about investments that will last for 50 years and prove to be transformative to our communities,” Mayor Williams said. He is particularly enthusiastic about efforts to invest in highways, clean water infrastructure, and broadband in Huntington and across Appalachia.Even assuming the Biden proposals make it through a narrowly divided Congress, there is no assurance of success. The long-declining communities face a complex web of problems, some of them a result of powerful economic forces — like outsize rewards for technologically savvy workers who congregate in large cities — that aren’t going away.“I’m going to give the Biden administration high marks for a lot of the individual tactical things they’re proposing,” said John Lettieri, president of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank that aims to encourage more economic dynamism in lagging parts of the country. “I worry that everything they’re doing will be helpful incidentally and on the margins, but that we need more aggressive and robust strategy and not tactics.”Moreover, there is a risk that even with trillions of dollars being spent, bureaucratic kludge makes the dollars less effective than they might be. Dozens of agencies are involved, and there is no certainty that the money will be spent efficiently and in ways that maximize the chances that struggling places can stabilize themselves.“This administration may be more concerned about declining cities and places than any since the Great Society, maybe the Great Depression,” said Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program. “At some point they will need to braid all of this together and manage how these programs interact with each other.”The administration’s emphasis partly reflects President Biden’s own longstanding instincts. He often invokes growing up in Scranton, Pa.— where the population was in steep decline throughout the second half of the 20th century — as formative in his economic thinking.But it also reflects evolution among economists and development specialists. Once the predominant thinking was that economically lagging regions and more successful ones would converge over time, and that the government should focus on helping people navigate a changing economy rather than try to save faltering communities.At right, President Biden’s childhood home in Scranton.Mark Makela for The New York TimesIt has become increasingly apparent that there are big problems when a handful of superstar cities thrive and much of the country struggles. It means vast human potential goes untapped and lots of capital — existing cities and towns — goes underutilized. And it can fuel political polarization and damage democracy, as people in declining regions feel less connected to their more prosperous countrymen.The debate is often framed as between “people” (policies to help individuals affected by economic change) and “places” (policies aimed at communities that are languishing).“I don’t think we can ignore the role of place in public policy any longer and just allocate investments to people,” said Ross DeVol, president of Heartland Forward, a think tank based in Bentonville, Ark. “Because that creates a hollowing out in places that affects the entire country negatively.“We can’t as a nation continue to advance our competitive position by concentrating more knowledge-based industries and research just on the coasts,” Mr. DeVol added, saying this results in soaring real estate prices in those coastal markets, as well as underused physical infrastructure and a lack of opportunity in the places left behind.Federal policy in recent decades has arguably reinforced the disparity.The federal government itself is based in one of the high-growth coastal metropolises. Nearly half of federal research and development spending in 2018 went to five states — California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Virginia — and Washington, D.C., according to analysis of federal data by Brookings.The Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan incorporates ideas from the bipartisan “Endless Frontier Act,” which, among other things, seeks to spend billions to create regional innovation hubs. The idea is to invest in cutting-edge research with potential for commercial spinoffs, worker training and other steps to create the kinds of virtuous cycles of innovation and jobs that already occur in places like Boston.That could be a boon to places like Lincoln, Neb.Its population has grown slowly but steadily in recent years; investments in things like high-speed internet have helped it avoid the cycle of decline affecting many other smaller cities in the Midwest. It is home to the University of Nebraska, which has strong programs in computer science and engineering, and it has a vibrant agribusiness sector.The Southpointe Pavilions shopping center in Lincoln, Neb.Walker Pickering for The New York TimesBut Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird says the city still loses young talent to opportunities in bigger cities. She says several elements of the Biden plans could improve things.A proposed $12 billion in community college spending should help ensure the city has the work force employers are looking for, she said. Plans to build broadband across rural communities could better connect Lincoln and its job opportunities with the rest of Nebraska.And the financial help for cities and states included in the American Rescue Plan, enacted in March, should allow more basic investments to make the city appealing to young families.The city has been slowly replacing lead water lines so residents can be confident of safe drinking water, she said, and it now has the prospect of being able to complete that work faster. “I think there was a sigh of collective relief among mayors of cities this size you could hear around the country” when the American Rescue Plan passed with money for local governments, Mayor Gaylor Baird said. “Everything about this moment feels like it has the potential to be transformational.”Mr. Williams, the Huntington mayor, also cast this as a moment with long-lasting implications. His city, a onetime industrial hub, features a low cost of living and lots of natural beauty, and is the home of Marshall University. It could appeal to workers who see an opportunity to work remotely and are tired of the stresses of bigger cities.Mayor Williams of Huntington, W.Va., is particularly enthusiastic about efforts to invest in highways, clean water infrastructure and broadband.Andrew Spear for The New York Times“The growth is going to occur where there is a community that is functional,” Mayor Williams said. “Covid was a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, but it’s also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as people realize they can work remotely if they have access to broadband and clean water and a safe and solid community.”The infrastructure legislation, he said, could be the jolt that assures people that the city can offer both jobs and amenities — and that it is reversing population loss and economic decline.“Sadly, when you look at our population losses, individuals have left just because they haven’t felt like they had a lot of choice,” he said. “My job is to give them a choice.” More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Says Rates Might Need to Rise as Economy Recovers

    by

    Ms. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, said that some “modest” increases might be necessary. She later clarified to say that she was not making a recommendation or providing advice to the Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy.WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said higher interest rates might be needed to keep the economy from overheating given the large investments that the Biden administration is proposing to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure and remake its labor force.The comments, broadcast online on Tuesday at The Atlantic’s Future Economy Summit, come amid heightened concern from some economists and businesses that the United States is in for a period of higher inflation as stimulus money flows through the economy and consumers begin spending again.The Treasury secretary has no role in setting interest rate policies. That is the purview of the Federal Reserve, which is independent from the White House.But the words of Ms. Yellen, a former Fed chair, carry substantial weight, and her comments were seized on by investors and critics who said she was improperly exerting influence over her prior monetary policy portfolio. In separate remarks later on Tuesday, Ms. Yellen made clear that she respects the central bank’s independence and was not making a recommendation.The stock market, which had been down in early trading, declined further after Ms. Yellen’s initial comments. Shortly before noon, the S&P 500 touched its worst level of the day, down 1.5 percent. Shares of some high-growth technology companies — which are especially sensitive to the risk of higher interest rates — were hard hit and weighed on the market. But the blue chip index cut those losses in half in the afternoon, ending the trading day down just 0.7 percent.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said last month that the central bank is unlikely to raise interest rates this year and that officials want to see further healing in the American economy they will consider pulling back their support by slowing government-backed bond purchases and lifting borrowing costs.While the Fed is watching for signs of inflation, Mr. Powell and other Fed officials have said they believe any price spikes will be temporary. On Monday, John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said that while the economy is recovering, “the data and conditions we are seeing now are not nearly enough” for the Fed’s policy-setting committee “to shift its monetary policy stance.”Ms. Yellen did not predict a huge spike in interest rates, which have been near zero since March 2020. But she said some “modest” increases might be necessary as the economy recovers from the pandemic downturn and the administration tries to push through infrastructure and other investments aimed at making the United States more competitive and productive.“It may be that interest rates will have to rise somewhat to make sure that our economy doesn’t overheat, even though the additional spending is relatively small relative to the size of the economy,” Ms. Yellen said when asked if the economy could handle the kind of robust spending that the Biden administration is proposing.“I think that our economy will grow faster because of them,” Ms. Yellen said of the proposed investments, such as research and development spending.The Biden administration has proposed spending approximately $4 trillion over a decade and would pay for the plan with tax increases on companies and the rich.Ms. Yellen’s comments drew some criticism on Tuesday among those who believed she was overstepping her bounds by weighing in on monetary policy.“Treasury secretaries shouldn’t talk about the Fed’s policy rate, and Fed governors shouldn’t talk about U.S. dollar policy,” Tony Fratto, a former official at Treasury and the White House during the Bush administration, said on Twitter.Francesco Bianchi, a Duke University economist who co-authored a 2019 research paper about the impact of former President Donald J. Trump’s tweets on perceptions of the Fed’s independence, called Ms. Yellen’s comments “unfortunate to the extent that the Fed is trying very hard to convince markets that interest rates will remain low.” However, he did not believe Ms. Yellen’s remarks were actually inappropriate.“It is not clear that the comment qualifies as central bank interference because Secretary Yellen was describing what she thinks would happen as the economy recovers and the Biden administration implements its policies,” Mr. Bianchi said in an email. “In other words, she did not ‘recommend’ that the Federal Reserve follows a particular policy prescription, but she seemed to reflect on how generally interest rates behave as the economy improves.”Asked about Ms. Yellen’s comments, Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, said the Treasury secretary was not trying to tell the Fed what to do or impeding on the central bank’s independence with her comment on interest rates.“I would say, of all people, Secretary Yellen certainly understands the independence and the role of the Federal Reserve, and I think she was simply answering a question and conveying how we balance decision-making here,” Ms. Psaki said.Speaking at a Wall Street Journal C.E.O. Council event on Tuesday afternoon, Ms. Yellen echoed that sentiment. She said she was not prescribing a rate hike and dismissed the idea that she would ever attempt to infringe on the Fed’s independence.“Let me be clear, it’s not something I’m predicting or recommending,” Ms. Yellen said of raising interest rates. “If anybody appreciates the independence of the Fed, I think that person is me.”Matt Phillips More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Proposals Aim to Give Sturdier Support to the Middle Class

    by

    Perhaps the most striking difference between the middle class of 50 years ago and the middle class today is a loss of confidence — the confidence that you were doing better than your parents and that your children would do better than you.President Biden’s multitrillion-dollar suite of economic proposals is aiming to both reinforce and rebuild an American middle class that feels it has been standing on shifting ground. And it comes with an explicit message that the private sector alone cannot deliver on that dream and that the government has a central part to play.“When you look at periods of shared growth,” said Brian Deese, director of Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, “what you see is that public investment has played an absolutely critical role, not to the exclusion of private investment and innovation, but in laying the foundation.”If the Biden administration gets its way, the reconstructed middle class would be built on a sturdier and much broader plank of government support rather than the vagaries of the market.Some proposals are meant to support parents who work: federal paid family and medical leave, more affordable child care, free prekindergarten classes. Others would use public investment to create jobs, in areas like clean energy, transportation and high-speed broadband. And a higher minimum wage would aim to buoy those in low-paid work, while free community college would improve skills.That presidents pitch their agendas to the middle class is not surprising given that nearly nine out of 10 Americans consider themselves members. The definition, of course, has always been a nebulous stew of cash, credentials and culture, relying on lifestyles and aspirations as much as on assets.But what cuts across an avalanche of studies, surveys and statistics over the last half century is that life in the middle class, once considered a guarantee of security and comfort, now often comes with a nagging sense of vulnerability.Salaries for teachers, hospital workers and child care providers are determined largely by the government, and do not necessarily reflect their value in an open market.Philip Keith for The New York TimesBefore the pandemic, unemployment was low and stocks soared. But for decades, workers have increasingly had to contend with low pay and sluggish wage growth, more erratic schedules, as well as a lack of sick days, parental leave and any kind of long-term security. At the same time, the cost of essentials like housing, health care and education have been gulping up a much larger portion of their incomes.The trend can be found in rich countries all over the world. “Every generation since the baby boom, has seen the middle-income group shrink and its economic influence weaken,” a 2019 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded.In the United States, the proportion of adults in the middle bands of the income spectrum — which the Pew Research Center defines as roughly between $50,000 and $150,000 — declined to 51 percent in 2019 from 61 percent 50 years ago. Their share of the nation’s income shrank even more over the same period, to 42 percent from 62 percent.Their outlook dimmed, too. During the 1990s, Pew found rising optimism that the next generation would be better off financially than the current one, reaching a high of 55 percent in 1999. That figure dropped to 42 percent in 2019.The economy has produced enormous wealth over the last few decades, but much of it was channeled to a tiny cadre at the top. Two wage earners were needed to generate the kind of income that used to come in a single paycheck.“Upper-income households pulled away,” said Richard Fry, a senior economist at Pew.Corrosive inequality was just the beginning of what appeared to be a litany of glaring market failures like the inability to head off ruinous climate change or meet the enormous demand for affordable housing and health care. Companies often channeled profits to buy back stock instead of using them to invest or raise wages.The evidence was growing, liberal economists argued, that the reigning hands-off economic approach — low taxes on the wealthy, minimal government — was not producing the broad-based economic gains that sustained and grew the middle class.“The unregulated economy is not working for most Americans,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics. “The government has an important role,” he emphasized, in regulating the private sector’s excesses, redistributing income and making substantial public investments.Skeptics have warned of government overreach and the risk that deficit spending could ignite inflation, but Mr. Biden and his team of economic advisers have, nonetheless, embraced the approach.“It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom and middle out,” Mr. Biden said in his speech to a joint session of Congress last week, a reference to the idea that prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the wealthy, but flows out of a well-educated and well-paid middle class.He underscored the point by singling out workers as the dynamo powering the middle class.“Wall Street didn’t build this country,” he said. “The middle class built the country. And unions built the middle class.”Of course, the economy that lifted millions of postwar families into the middle class differed sharply from the current one. Manufacturing, construction and mining jobs, previously viewed as the backbone of the labor force, dwindled — as did the labor unions that aggressively fought for better wages and benefits. Now, only one out of every 10 workers is a union member, while roughly 80 percent of jobs in the United States are in the service sector.And it is these types of jobs, in health care, education, child care, disabled and senior care, that are expected to continue expanding at the quickest pace.Most of them, though, fall short of paying middle-income wages. That does not necessarily reflect their value in an open market. Salaries for teachers, hospital workers, lab technicians, child care providers and nursing home attendants are determined largely by the government, which collects tax dollars to pay their salaries and sets reimbursements rates for Medicare and other programs.They are also jobs that are filled by significant numbers of women, African-Americans, Latinos and Asians.“When we think about what is the right wage,” Mr. Stiglitz asked, “should we take advantage of discrimination against women and people of color, which is what we’ve done, or can we use this as the basis of building a middle class?”Mr. Biden’s spending plans — a $2.3 trillion infrastructure package called the American Jobs Plan, and a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan that concentrates on social spending — aim to take account of just how much the work force and the economy have transformed over the past half-century and where they may be headed in the next.The president’s economic team took inspiration from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the public programs that followed it.After World War II, for instance, the government helped millions of veterans get college educations and buy homes by offering tuition assistance and subsidized mortgages. It created a mammoth highway system to undergird commercial activity and funneled billions of dollars into research and development that was used later to develop smartphone technology, search engines, the human genome project, magnetic resonance imaging, hybrid corn and supercomputers.Mr. Biden, too, wants to fix roads and bridges, upgrade electric grids and invest in research. But his administration has also concluded that a 21st-century economy requires much more, from expanded access to high-speed broadband, which more than a third of rural inhabitants lack, to parental leave and higher wages for child care workers.The basic necessities that make it possible for parents to fully participate in the work force, like child care and parental leave, are still missing, said Betsey Stevenson, an economics professor.Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York Times“We’ve now had 50 years of the revolution of women entering the labor force,” and the most basic necessities that make it possible for parents to fully participate in the work force are still missing, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor at the University of Michigan and a former member of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers. She paused a few moments to take it in: “It’s absolutely stunning.”Right before the pandemic, more women than men could be found in paying jobs.Ensuring equal opportunity, Ms. Stevenson noted, includes “the opportunity to get high-quality early-childhood education, the opportunity to have a parent stay home with you when you’re sick, the opportunity for a parent to bond with you when born.”When it comes to offering this type of support, she added, “the United States is an outlier compared to almost every industrialized country.”The administration also has an eye on how federal education, housing and business programs of earlier eras largely excluded women, African-Americans, Asians and others.In the Biden plan are aid for colleges that primarily serve nonwhite students, free community college for all, universal prekindergarten and monthly child payments.“This is not a 1930s model any more,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a political science professor at Princeton University.And it’s all to be paid for by higher taxes on corporations and the top 1 percent.Passage in a sharply polarized Congress is anything but assured. The multitrillion-dollar price tag and the prospect of an activist government have ensured the opposition of Republicans in a Senate where Democrats have the slimmest possible majority.But public polling from last year showed widening support for the government to take a larger role.“What is so remarkable about this moment is this notion that public investment can transform America, that these are things government can do,” said Felicia Wong, president of the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute. “This is fundamentally restructuring how the economy works.”The middle class today differs in significant ways from the middle class of 50 years ago and perhaps the most striking is a loss of confidence.Evan Jenkins for The New York Times More